Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 FFP with SHR-W MOA reticle Field Tested and Reviewed

[Matt Cashell]

The SHR-mil reticle version of this scope is pretty popular here on Rokslide and elsewhere. It passed the infamous drop test and has been pretty much hailed by every shooter that's used it.

Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 MIL review

So popular, in fact, it can be pretty hard to come by with some long backorder waits.

This scope, however, is immediately available in other reticles. For those of us that get along with MOA, Maven offers this tough and versatile scope with the SHR-W reticle. This is a windage hash reticle for dialing elevation and holding wind. Uniquely, it also has holdover lines at 5, 10, and 20 MOA for quick holdover shots and follow-up shots.



The reticle at 2.5x:



The reticle at 15x:



Follow along here as I get this scope to the range and woods. I will go over the optics, features, and of course the reticle.

What do you think? Is this a setup you're interested in?

 

[SDHNTR]

I need to know more about the usability of the reticle at low power. Everyone claims the mil version is fine at low power, but that pic above does not impress me much.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I need to know more about the usability of the reticle at low power. Everyone claims the mil version is fine at low power, but that pic above does not impress me much.

Great question!

My first impression is the reticle is pretty thin at 2.5x…

However, the center dot illumination is daylight visible and helps at 2.5x.

The real eye opener for me is the crosshairs improve in visibility a lot by turning up to as low as 3x. By 4x it is pretty bold.

I will have to spend some more time behind the scope to really narrow down the low magnification usability.

 

[SDHNTR]

Great question!

My first impression is the reticle is pretty thin at 2.5x…

However, the center dot illumination is daylight visible and helps at 2.5x.

The real eye opener for me is the crosshairs improve in visibility a lot by turning up to as low as 3x. By 4x it is pretty bold.

I will have to spend some more time behind the scope to really narrow down the low magnification usability.

Thanks, keep me posted.

Would be interesting to hear from someone who has used both the mil and moa versions of this same reticle and can compare/contrast the two.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Thanks, keep me posted.

Will do.

The flip side of that thin reticle at low power is that its thickness is really nice at max power. Some FFP reticles are too thick at max power for me. This one is plenty visible but allows for precision at max power.

 

[Macintosh]

Mil guy so not particularly interested in an moa reticle, but agree with above—it looks too fine at lowest X in the photo above. Maven’s reticle diagrams leave a lot to be desired, so if possible would be great for folks interested to have actual measured thickness of the various lines in the reticle at lowest power so they could ibjectively compare to other reticles. For me lowest x is far more important to me than highest, so thatd be the deal-breaker.

 

[SDHNTR]

Mil guy so not particularly interested in an moa reticle, but agree with above—it looks too fine at lowest X in the photo above. Maven’s reticle diagrams leave a lot to be desired, so if possible would be great for folks interested to have actual measured thickness of the various lines in the reticle at lowest power so they could ibjectively compare to other reticles. For me lowest x is far more important to me than highest, so thatd be the deal-breaker.

Agreed.

 

[lelliott8]

Mil guy so not particularly interested in an moa reticle, but agree with above—it looks too fine at lowest X in the photo above. Maven’s reticle diagrams leave a lot to be desired, so if possible would be great for folks interested to have actual measured thickness of the various lines in the reticle at lowest power so they could ibjectively compare to other reticles. For me lowest x is far more important to me than highest, so thatd be the deal-breaker.

Here is a link to the MIL in more detail.
He may have both the MIL and the MOA

 

[Matt Cashell]

Maven advised the Primary Stadia are 0.8 MOA for the SHR-W and 0.4 Mil for the SHR-Mil.

So the SHR-W is thinner than the SHR-Mil

EDIT: Corrected Mil subtension.

 

[SDHNTR]

Maven advised the Primary Stadia are 0.8 MOA for the SHR-W and 0.8 Mil for the SHR-Mil.

So the SHR-W is significantly thinner than the SHR-Mil

Which means that is the second time the CS gal for maven has given me incorrect information. But thanks for the answer. Just what I needed to know.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Which means that is the second time the CS gal for maven has given me incorrect information. But thanks for the answer. Just what I needed to know.

Sorry, there was a typo in the Mil subtension. It is in fact 0.4 Mil, which makes more sense. The SHR-W is still thinner though.

 

[BULLBLASTER]

Did you miss a decimal place? .08 and .04 seem more likely.

 

[Shortschaf]

SHR W reticle, units in MOA:


Rounded to 0.8 because of above comments. Converted to MILs -- the fat part of SHR-W reticle is 0.23MILs thick.



MIL reticle, units in MILs:
The fat part of reticle is 0.4MIL thick

 

[BULLBLASTER]

Ahh the thick ones. That makes sense.

 

[SDHNTR]

So the fat lines are approximately 2x thicker on the mil version. Am I reading that right? This is a big bummer. I would buy the MOA one in a heartbeat. And was initially excited when this came out due to its availability, but not if the reticle is too thin at low power.

 

[Shortschaf]

So the fat lines are approximately 2x thicker on the mil version. Am I reading that right?

Yes

 

[SDHNTR]

Yes

Fail.
Let down of the day.

 

[MtnHtr]

Does anyone have info on when the mil version will be available? Will call in a few days.

(new guy here)

 

[Marbles]

Does anyone have info on when the mil version will be available? Will call in a few days.

(new guy here)

When pigs fly, just like SWFA 3-9s.

 

[MtnHtr]

When pigs fly, just like SWFA 3-9s.

Ha!